What is the purpose of the millennium according to historic premillennialism

[Broadus]

We would still see that as bring the fulfillment of the Messianic Age, as when the Kingdom is extended over entire Earth, as He reigns and then the Eternal State.

Thanks for responding—that makes sense. I would see the eternal state as the ultimate fulfillment and makes the historic premil view superfluous.

I have to say that my big beef is not with historic premillennialism but with dispensational. Dispensationalism, in my view, has done great harm to the church, but that’s a subject for another thread.

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks for responding—that makes sense. I would see the eternal state as the ultimate fulfillment and makes the historic premil view superfluous.

I have to say that my big beef is not with historic premillennialism but with dispensational. Dispensationalism, in my view, has done great harm to the church, but that’s a subject for another thread.

We see the literal reigning on Earth as real Messianic Age time period.

 

[Broadus]

We see the literal reigning on Earth as real Messianic Age time period.

I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?

 

[Dachaser]

I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?

Church always was part of the plan of God, not added in after Isreal refused Jesus as Messiah, and they hold to rapture seperate from second coming still.

 

[RamistThomist]

I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?

The specifics on both sides would need to be fleshed out. Classical dispensationalism needed the rapture because God couldn't work with Israel and the Church at the same time. I don't think Progressive Dispensationalists necessarily hold that view, which is why Charles Ryrie warned that progressive dispensationalism was a Trojan Horse inside DTS.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?

I believe so. I was a member of a large Baptist Church where the Pastors held to different views. There weren't any old time Dispensationalists Pastoring. In fact it was a time when Progressive Dispensationalism was making advances. I believe it was coming out of Dallas Theological Seminary at that time. They didn't view the Church Age as some plan B.

 

[Pilgrim]

Although some may wish to call me something else, I would describe myself as a classic or covenant premillennialist.

I haven't looked closely at this subject in about a decade. But off the top of my head, it's the idea that Christ shall be vindicated and have dominion in space and time history. That is why millennialism (whether pre or post) in all its forms has been derided as a "Theology of Glory" and "Carnal Dreams" or whatever by Lutherans and by Lutheran-influenced Reformed people.

 

[Pilgrim]

If, indeed, Scripture says it, then that is enough. Still, does Scripture definitely lay out things without giving a purpose, either explicitly or implicitly?

Dispensational premils would say the purpose is to fulfill literally OT prophesy. What about historic premils? I don’t find they take that same approach, in that they spiritualize the temple and renewed sacrifices.

The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.

The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.

This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)

If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.

 

[Dachaser]

The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.

The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.

This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)

If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.

Spurgeon was premil, and saw the Jews restored at time of second voming, so historical and Dispensational premil seem to have that in common.

 

[Pilgrim]

Spurgeon was premil, and saw the Jews restored at time of second voming, so historical and Dispensational premil seem to have that in common.

The older type of "historic" premil and Progressive Dispensationalism definitely have some similarity. Some in the latter group don't even insist on pre-trib. The main differences between PD and covenant premil are probably with regard to law and grace, covenant theology, and similar things. I tend to use "covenant" or "classic" to refer to the older type of premil since most "historic premils" today reject covenant theology. Among the Baptists they tend to be progressive covenantalists or something like that.

 

[Dachaser]

The older type of "historic" premil and Progressive Dispensationalism definitely have some similarity. Some in the latter group don't even insist on pre-trib. The main differences between PD and covenant premil are probably with regard to law and grace, covenant theology, and similar things. I tend to use "covenant" or "classic" to refer to the older type of premil since most "historic premils" today reject covenant theology. Among the Baptists they tend to be progressive covenantalists or something like that.

What is progressive covenantalists?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Precisely because the amil doesn't believe that both resurrections refer to a bodily resurrection. I disagree with amils, but they are quite consistent on this point.

Many Amils I know hold Christ to be "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). By having our "part" in Him through salvation we become part of that great spiritual harvest. Through physical resurrection we become part of that great physical harvest. Both the first and second resurrections are totally connected. Because Christ conquered the grave physically so we will conquer the grave if we have our "part" or portion "in Christ" through salvation. The key is that we initially experience our part in that glorious first resurrection "by faith" and therefore experience both resurrections.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.

The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.

This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)

If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.

Out of interest, who are all the wicked mortals who populate the future premill millennium and give allegiance to Satan at the end? Basically: where do they come from and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?

Do you believe in a restored millennial temple and the restoration of animal sacrifices in that age?

 

[RamistThomist]

Many Amils I know hold Christ to be "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). By having our "part" in Him through salvation we become part of that great spiritual harvest. Through physical resurrection we become part of that great physical harvest. Both the first and second resurrections are totally connected. Because Christ conquered the grave physically so we will conquer the grave if we have our "part" or portion "in Christ" through salvation. The key is that we initially experience our part in that glorious first resurrection "by faith" and therefore experience both resurrections.

I know amils believe that. That's kind of what I said. I wasn't criticizing them (at least not there).

 

[RamistThomist]

Basically: where do they come from

Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.

what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?

To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.

 

[Dachaser]

Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.


To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.

Yes, as we see the Wrath during Tribulation period.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.

One of the major struggles I had/have with Premil, and why I felt I had to abandon it, was that Premils explain the whole end-time events in the light of their opinion of Rev 20. When pressed, they are slow to corroborate all the major tenets of Premil. So, I have a few questions that I cannot get answered by Premils:

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them?

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

What Scripture (including Revelation 20) do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgment days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.

I realize that. But with that comes major theological problems. Maybe you could address these.

Please list anyone that could possibly be excluded from the camp of the wicked, destroyed in Revelation 19:18, judiciously described as “the flesh of all men”? Surely the Holy Spirit eliminates any ambiguity in regard to the wholesale nature of the destruction of the wicked by adding the water-tight suffix, “both free and bond, both small and great”?

Surely everything about Revelation 19:15 is climactic? Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word patasso, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay. The nations left behind are clearly totally destroyed. Christ destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth.

How possibly can the wicked survive in the Revelation 19 and enter some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age when it says that “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God”? Surely what awaits those left behind is final destruction?

Surely just in case the reader is not getting it, Revelation 19:21 reinforces the climatic nature of Christ’s Coming by telling us that “the loipoy (or) those left behind … were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth”? The result of this is shown as: “all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” How could the enlightened reader come to any other conclusion than those that are left behind are completely and totally destroyed?

Surely Revelation 19 is the end of a parallel, and Revelation 20 is the beginning of a new one?

Also,

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that remotely corroborates the Premillennial view of Revelation 19-20 that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?

Which unregenerate are excluded from the description of "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 1:8)?

Which followers of the beast are exempt from destruction when Jesus comes? After all, according to Scripture, all the wicked that reject Christ are not in the Lamb's Book of life from the foundation of the world follow the beast (Revelation 13:3-4, 8 and 17:8).

Can you tell me what unsaved do not give allegiance to the beast/Antichrist/mystery of iniquity?

When I Thessalonians 5:2-3 describes the destruction that accompanies Christ appearing “as a thief in the night” as “sudden destruction” – how would you define “sudden”?

When I Thessalonians 5:2-3 describes the result of the “sudden destruction” that accompanies Christ appearing as leaving those left behind it such a dammed condition that “they shall not escape,” how could you imagine that anyone would survive?

Jesus compares His return and the judgment He pours out to Noah's day and Sodom when they were completely destroyed, saying, “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” What percentage of the wicked worldwide were destroyed through the judgment in Noah’s day?

What percentage of the wicked were destroyed through the judgment in Sodom and Gomorrah in Lot’s day?

 

[RamistThomist]

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them?

Premils don't die on the hill of "it has to be 1000 years." If you want corroborating Scriptures, Isaiah's Little Apocalypse. Anyway, if Revelation 20 says what it says, why do I have to get other Scriptures to back it up (which I can find)?

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Why do I have to find other Scriptures? But since you ask, even Vos admits that the eita....epeita construction in 1 Cor. 15 implies as much.

What Scripture (including Revelation 20) do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgment days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

See above responses.

I'll pass on the rest of the questions. It feels like "Twenty Questions."

 

[sovereigngrace]

Premils don't die on the hill of "it has to be 1000 years." If you want corroborating Scriptures, Isaiah's Little Apocalypse. Anyway, if Revelation 20 says what it says, why do I have to get other Scriptures to back it up (which I can find)?


Why do I have to find other Scriptures? But since you ask, even Vos admits that the eita....epeita construction in 1 Cor. 15 implies as much.


See above responses.

I'll pass on the rest of the questions. It feels like "Twenty Questions."

I believe, this lack of corroboration (supporting Scripture with Scripture) that you concede, is at the core of why many reject the Premil theory. This is where the school of thought falls down. Corroboration is fundamental to understanding any truth in Scripture. Without it you are left with private interpretation.

The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture. They used this to dismantle Roman Catholic heresy. They required corroborative evidence to support their opinion of any given text. This was to prevent error and to aid our understanding of truth.

Sound theologians have employed this important principle to avoid speculative interpretation and the damage of forcing a meaning on a text that contradicts repeated Scripture.

Anyone that is a student of this Book (and theology) will know the importance of this great demand. Anyone that has ever been involved in law will also know how essential it is in proving a fact.

Most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.

Amillennialism

Scripture shows that the Second Coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13 & Matt 28:19-20).

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corrupt occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

 

[RamistThomist]

Without it you are left with private interpretation.

That does not logically follow. For it is still my private judgment that Scripture b backs up Scripture a.

 

[RamistThomist]

I believe, this lack of corroboration (supporting Scripture with Scripture) that you concede, is at the core of why many reject the Premil theory. This is where the school of thought falls down. Corroboration is fundamental to understanding any truth in Scripture. Without it you are left with private interpretation.

The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture. They used this to dismantle Roman Catholic heresy. They required corroborative evidence to support their opinion of any given text. This was to prevent error and to aid our understanding of truth.

Sound theologians have employed this important principle to avoid speculative interpretation and the damage of forcing a meaning on a text that contradicts repeated Scripture.

Anyone that is a student of this Book (and theology) will know the importance of this great demand. Anyone that has ever been involved in law will also know how essential it is in proving a fact.

Most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.

Amillennialism

Scripture shows that the Second Coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13 & Matt 28:19-20).

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corrupt occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

Were my responses simply a springboard for you to talk about amillennialism? And you aren't telling me anything new. I've read through Revelation in Greek. I've read most of the major defenses of all three positions (going back to 2002 in my journey).

 

[Dachaser]

That does not logically follow. For it is still my private judgment that Scripture b backs up Scripture a.

Indeed, as we who hold to premil see the OT Propets as supporting a literal Messianic Age here on Earth.

 

[Dachaser]

Were my responses simply a springboard for you to talk about amillennialism? And you aren't telling me anything new. I've read through Revelation in Greek. I've read most of the major defenses of all three positions (going back to 2002 in my journey).

All major positions use scriptures to back their view up with.

 

[sovereigngrace]

All major positions use scriptures to back their view up with.

Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions.

Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.

 

[RamistThomist]

What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil.

So? Many premils have found corroboration. You just don't like their results.

And what Bible verse gives us corroboration for something like the distinction between ruling and teaching elder? Further, what Bible verse says we have to have extra corroboration for each proposition in Scripture, and what verse corroborates that verse?

 

[RamistThomist]

My own broad conclusions on eschatology.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/summary-of-reformed-eschatology/

 

[sovereigngrace]

So? Many premils have found corroboration. You just don't like their results.

And what Bible verse gives us corroboration for something like the distinction between ruling and teaching elder? Further, what Bible verse says we have to have extra corroboration for each proposition in Scripture, and what verse corroborates that verse?

This is the same reasoning that Mormons give for baptizing the dead. As for your 'ruling and teaching elder' I never advanced such a theory, so I do not know what has to do with the lack of Premil corroboration. Normally when people go there it is because they lack biblical support for their doctrine.

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that there will be a literal 1,000 years after the Second Coming that is sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted and war-ravaged. Neither Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude nor any other New Testament writer describes one.

The same applies to the Old Testament. John Metcalfe rightly says in relation to the Holy Spirit’s use of the phrase “a thousand” in the Old Testament, in a booklet ‘Premillennialism Exposed’, “One reads of a thousand hills, a thousand vines, a thousand Philistines, a thousand children of Bigvai, a thousand Ammonites, a thousand spears, a thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand chariots, a thousand judges, a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, but never of a thousand years reign, no, not from Genesis to Malachi.”

And continues, “One can discover a thousand shields for a thousand Israelites, a thousand cubits and a thousand footmen to traverse them, a thousand talents and a thousand oxen to carry them, a thousand silver pieces and a thousand Edomites to covet them, a thousand baths and a thousand men to bathe in them, but what no one can find, no, not one of a thousand, is a thousand years reign at the end of time with the second coming of Christ preceding this millennial invention.”

 

[Pilgrim]

Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions.

Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.

Every single one of your posts on this board pertains to eschatology, almost all of which are specifically anti-premil.

With all due respect, what many of us have found over the years is that it is not worthwhile attempting to engage with someone who is evidently riding a hobby horse and who appears to have no interest in discussing anything else.

 

[RamistThomist]

As for your 'ruling and teaching elder' I never advanced such a theory

My point was that people can make doctrinal claims and yet not have all the infinite corroborations necessary.

This is the same reasoning that Mormons give for baptizing the dead

Logical fallacy

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that there will be a literal 1,000 years after the Second Coming that is sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted and war-ravaged. Neither Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude nor any other New Testament writer describes one.

That contradicts your earlier claim when you said I had to have one more corroboration. If there is no text teaching a thousand year reign, then why bother with demanding a corroboration, anyway?

 

[Dachaser]

Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions.

Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.

The one ruled over by Jesus on Earth has no sin, sickness, war, and His morals are those worldwide. Do not see in the Bible the one you described!